My Civil Disobedience

As a 16 year old, there are many driving laws to follow. There is the law that I can only have one person (not directly related to me) in the car. There is also a driving curfew of 10pm on weekdays and 11pm on weekends. Last weekend, I went to an event with my Youth Group, where we went down town for a scavenger hunt in limos. The problem was that were not supposed to get back to the temple until 11:30 and my parents couldn't pick me up. What should I do? Should I try to hurry up the event so we could get back before curfew? Thoreau states: "But if it is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law," (Thoreau 274). In Civil Disobedience Thoreau says that it is worse to do injustice upon someone else than to break the law. To me, this translates to: Don't hurry up the event, because it is unfair to your friends. So, in the end, I decided to break curfew. Was this the right decision? Well, since I didn't get caught, I guess it worked out. What would you have done?

I know that the rule about only driving one person at a time is rediculous. Why does it matter how many people are in the car or if they are related to you? I know many 16 year olds have broken this law, so why even have it? Should laws like this be followed? Why is J-Walking illegal? I'm not saying to break seemingly rediculous laws, rather I am questioning them. Is it "OK" to break curfew or drive with multiple people if the reason you are doing it is just. Do the ends justice the means? I believe in some cases they do. I am curious how many people follow these laws, even if they see them as rediculous. Do you follow the law or do you find yourself leaning towards civil disobedience?

Simplicity in Education

After talking about simplicity this week in class, it seems that our society does not embrace anything remotely close to simplicity in our education system. As a junior, I am very interested in "the college search" and finding a school that suits me. I have found that there are so many schools! And getting into certain schools is increadibly difficult. So many schools nowadays require more than hard work and good grades, but good ACT or SAT scores, SAT II scores, teacher recommendations, unique essays and much more. This process is overwhelming.

When creating the typical day at New Trier in class last week, we defined that our person's (Talyor's) goal was to get into a "good college." This goal is much easier said than done. There are so many colleges! And sometimes it's not always fair. Maybe you didn't get in to Stanford because they needed a trombone player. This process, to me, goes against HDT's philosophy and desire for simplicity. Our educations system is so complicated! Is there really even a difference in going to Harvard or going to Illinois? Well, in our society a degree from Harvard will help you get a "good job," but isn't the education at Illinois still the same? Don't they have the same classes and books? So then why is our society divided into "good schools" and "bad schools" and why is it so hard to get into the "perfect school?" I guess it comes down to ambition and determination. If Taylor is determined enough to go to a certain school, (s)he will probably get in. So why not a simpler system? Would it be better if all students received the same education? What if all students went to the same school? Some people might see this as equality, others as communism, but in my opinion it would make the process of getting into college a lot simpler. The reason I would not be in favor of it is because finding your "perfect" college is fun. What do you think?

Progress on Modern Day Issues

With the inaguration of the 44th president of the United States, change is immenent. President Elect Barack Obama has put forth plans to deal with many of today's national problems. Obama recognizes many of the modern day issues that we discussed in class on Friday. After Friday's discussion I felt compelled to not only better understand, but to inform about what our next president plans to do about these issues. Some of the major issues we came up with in class were education, health care and the environment. I found all of his plans on the official Obama website. His plans go as such:

Education:

He wants to heavily reform No Child Left Behind. Also, Obama plans to invest in childhood education, adequately fund all schools and get high-quality teachers at those schools. If done like promised, this could be major progress in the department of education. Hopefully, Obama's goals are not too idealistic, because education is important.

Health Care:

Obama is a big fan of universal health care. This means he wants equal and affordable health care for all. Hopefully we can call this progress. Although our nation preaches equality for all, universal health care is a big question mark. It does not seem to work in Canada, because there is a big need for doctors. This causes a lack of quality doctors, which makes their doctors "worse." Is Obama's plan progress? In my opinion: yes and no. According to Emerson, "society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other," (Emerson 36). I feel this is very true with Obama's health care plan. It is progress to give everyone health care, but we regress when we add less capable doctors. Again, hopefully we are making "progress" or that our progress is more positive than negative.

Environment:

Personally, I feel that the issue of global warming is our most important issue and needs a lot more focus than it is being given. Obama wants to invest in alternate fuel sources and create 5 million more "green" jobs, but I don't think this is enough. If our environment goes, we all go.

Overall, I do think that progress is being made because these issues are being addressed. Previously, the issue of global warming has not received enough attention. I am optimistic that our changes for the future will help solve these problems.

Technology Kills!

To many, technology may seem great. Most people simply embrace new technology, rather than question it. There are so many consequences, both positive and negative, that go along with new technology. After we talked about new technology in class yesterday, I could help but wonder if we will ever find out that these new technological devices are harmful. In our grandparents generation, smoking was considered the cool thing to do, just like having a cell phone, ipod or car is today. Now we know that cigarettes kill; will our grandchildren look back on us and say how could we use cell phones? Personally, I subconsciencely believe that we will look back and find that cell phones do cause tumors. Doctors at the Brain Tumor Center at Duke University think that my uncle's fatal brain tumor was formed from the overuse of his cell phone (along with the overuse of artificial sugars). After loosing an uncle, my family has become more hesitant to use cellular devices. My mom does not like when I carry my cell phone in my pocket either, because she thinks it will cause some sort of funky thigh tumors. She also prefers it when I use speaker phone becuase may reduce my risk of getting a brain tumor. Is she right? I don't know; I'm not a doctor. But I hope that she, along with numerous doctors who have these type of theories, is wrong so that my generation won't suffer.

Another technological issue that drives me crazy is new cars. Cars are flat out scary. The fact that pretty much any 16 year old kid can drive a car is even scarier. One of my (unamed) friends has hit 4 cars backing out of his drive way. Another one of my (unamed) friends has hit a fire-hydren, turned into the woods and hit a car on his way to school. Maybe my friends aren't the best drivers, but how can these kids be permitted to control automobiles that could kill someone. i have also heard that there are students at NTHS that drag race, which is extremely dangerous. I'm not saying that 16 year olds should not be given license; I am saying that modern day technology can have terrible consequences and should be taken used with care. Hopefully, I am worrying over nothing, but technology should not be taken lightly.

The 26th Amendment: The Right To Vote

The 26th amendment states: "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age of older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." Bottom line, anyone who is eighteen or older can vote. That means that some high school seniors can vote. Wow! Think about it; if we were all a year or two older we would be able to vote. How are we possibly old enough to know who is the best fit leader of our great nation? How are high school seniors old enough to know this? In the last couple of years, it seems a popular motto has been embraced by many celebrities and political activists: "Vote or Die!" (as seen on the left). I have some serious issues with this slogan and even this amendment.

To me, the motto encourages even those who have not done appropriate research or know anything about either canadite to vote. Is that what voting is about? To me, a presidential candidate should win because people truly support his/her views over those of his/her opponents. After asking many of my voting-eligable friends about their political preferences, it seemed that these kids knew very little, yet still had strong feelings. When asked why one (anonymous) student openly supported Barack Obama, he replied that he simply didn't want Governor Palin to be in the White House. When pressured further about his response, I found he had no information to back up his claim. Another student, who openly supported one (unamed) candidate told me that they supported him because their parents do. Another student told me that they supported a certain candidate because they agreed with his view. I was excited to finally hear a knowledgable response, but when I asked which views they supported, they told me "all of them; i don't know; i guess because my parents support them."

Although there were some students who were educated upon the viewpoints of the candidates, I was shocked at the overwhelming number of potential voters that knew practically nothing about either candidate. Honestly, I began to question whether we should raise the voting age, but why does it matter if the person is 18 or 21? If they don't take time to investigate at the age of 18, who's to say that they will when they are 21? For this reason, I strongly urge a new motto for voting: "Vote AND RESEARCH or Die." Hopefully more people will start to research both of the candidates in future elections, in order to elect the best and truly most supported candidate. I am optimistic that the choice of Barack Obama for president will be a good one, and hopefully the people who voted for him actually supported the views that he holds.

13 Year Old Child Left in Nebraska

Last month, a mother from Michigan, drove her 13 year old son to Nebraska and left him there. As we discussed in class, Nebraska is the only state that has a safe-haven law that allows parents (or anyone else) to leave children at hospitals within the state until they are 18 years old. Government officials in Nebraska, according to an article in Tacoma Washington's News Tribune, say this law "should be used only for children in immediate danger." What does this mean? Why not put simply put your child or children up for adoption, instead of abandoning them? According to the article, an out of work, widower named Gary Slaton has abandoned 9 out of his 10 children at hospitals in Nebraska because he felt overwhelmed. Is this right? Since the law took effect in July, 18 children from states outside of Nebraska have been taken to and abandoned in Nebraska. Personally, I think that this is awful. How can a parent do this to their child? How can our government allow this to happen? There is a reason that the other 49 states do not implement this law, so then why doesn't the government interfere and strike it down in Nebraska?

Upon reading about Nebraska's safe-haven law, I wondered if it violated the Constitution or if taking this law away would be a violation of the Constitution. After looking over our Bill of Rights sheet from class, I felt that this issue related to two different amendments. First, I thought that the 8th amendment had a lot to do with Nebraska's safe-haven law. According to the article, many of the children or teenagers who are abandoned in Nebraska had uncontrollable behavioral problems. Abandonment is thus the parent's form of punishment. Does this violate the 8th amendment then? Can this be considered cruel and unusual punishment? I believe it is a very unusual punishment and that it is also cruel to leave a child in a different state due to behavioral problems. So yes, in my opinion it does violate the 8th amendment. Or is it a parents right to leave their child in Nebraska? Could this be considered part of the ninth amendment as a given right? Personally, I think that leaving your child in a different state is a cruel and unusual punishment. What do you think?

Idealism in October

Last friday, the Chicago Bull's 2008 preseason ended with an overtime win over their division rivals, the Milwaukee Bucks. According to ESPN power rankings, the Bulls were ranked 8th going into last years season. They were the third highest ranked team in the Eastern Conference behind the Detriot Pistons and the Boston Celtics. ESPN predicted the Bulls to have a record of 49-33, while they ended up with a depressing 33-49 record and the inability to make the playoffs. As a big Bulls fan and Bulls idealist, this offseason was a success. Since they failed to make the playoffs, the Bulls were eligable for the NBA Draft lottery. This means that they had a shot at snagging the number one overall pick. Although the chance of doing this was only 1.7%, somehow the Bulls found a way and drafted future superstar Derrick Rose.

This year the Bulls are predicted by ESPN power rankings to be the ninth best team in the East, which would mean just missing a playoff berth. They have dropped in just one year from the eigth ranked team in the NBA to the 17th. Does this have an effect on the average Bulls' fan's idealistic views for an NBA finals victory? Maybe, but it definately does not effect my idealistic views for my team. All we have done this offseason is improve. We are a better and more experienced team than last year. Last year we got rid of Big Ben Wallace, who was way past his prime and moved on. With the NBA's youngest team, the Bulls have a promising future. Many experts have what they think is a more pragmatic view of the Bulls, but who's to say they're right? The Bulls now have something to prove; they are in the top 8 teams in the NBA and can contend with the big guys. I know I'm looking forward to Tuesday night when the Bulls open their season at home against the Milwaukee Bucks. This should be a promising start to a new era of Bulls basketball.

Idealism in Michigan football

As a huge supporter of the University of Michigan and their football team, I had high hopes as always for this season. Even though it was a "rebuilding" year, my idealistic views stayed strong. I truly believed that Michigan's current streaks of 31 straight bowl game appearances, 40 straight non-losing seasons and 287 straight games without being shutout or held to zero points. All of these streaks are the longest current streak in Division I-A football. Are these streaks at risk? As an idealist, I said no at the beginning of the season. Now my views are starting to turn more pragmatic. Can we truly beat four out of the five remaining opponents to reach a bowl game? These opponents include the 12th ranked Ohio State Buckeyes, the 20th ranked Michigan State Spartans and the 6-1 Northwestern Wildcats. After witnessing Michigan lose on a blocked field goal to Toledo on October 11th, my hopes for a good season were shut out. At the beginning of the year, I truly believed that we could have a good season, but since have enduring many discouraging remarks from friends and even teachers such as my long time Ohio State supporting, biology teacher. After getting blown out by Notre Dame, my friend sent me this painfully discouraging video picking fun at Michigan's six turnovers in the game.

After defeating 9th ranked Wisconsin on September 27th, I became hopeful. I continued to leech onto this hope when we were leading in the second quarter against a very good Illinois team two weeks ago. In the end, Juice Williams and Illinois went crazy and beat us 45-20. Yesterday, I found myself feeling more pragmatic, even when Michigan was leading 17-14 in the third quarter against 3rd ranked Penn State. It seems only right that Michigan went on to lose the game 46-17. Now, sitting with a depressing 2-5 record, it seems my hope has run out. My idealistic views have left me feeling depressed, so now maybe I will try being more pragmatic. We probably won't make the National Championship game, let alone a bowl game, but it would be nice if we did.

A Depression In Chicago

Chicago is in a state of peril. Later this month, the Chicago Cubs will have successfully gone 100 years without a World Series win. Is this a problem? YES! Cubs fans are getting restless, annoyed and very emotional. As a Cubs fan myself, I can honestly say I am tired of waiting until next year. I have heard so many negative comments about my Cubbies in the past week that I think I am going into a Depression. I think that the Cubs season can accurately be summed up in this Youtube Video. In the video, Cubs ace Carlos Zambrano pitches to Dodgers centerfielder Juan Pierre. Pierre lays down a bunt and Zambrano overthrows Derreck Lee, the first baseman. In the end, Pierre makes it safely to third on a play in which he should have been thrown out at first. In game 2 of the National League Divisional Series, all four of the Cubs infielders made errors, which led to a loss of the game and the inevitable loss of the series.

Cubs fans were hopeful after the Cubs finished with the best regular season record in the National League, which makes their quick exit from the playoffs even more difficult to bear. So what will it take? From our perilous times unit, we have seen an extension of leadership in perilous times. This corresponds to an extension in payroll for the Cubs. We need clutch players who can come through in the playoffs and give us our long-waited championship. This offseason, the Cubs need to be aggressive. There are many good free agents this offseason including Manny Ramirez (who destroyed the Cubs in this postseason), CC Sabathia, Ben Sheets, Fransisco Rodriguez and many others.

In contrast to the Great Depression, the Cubs drought may seem short. The economic decline of the Great Depression lasted a year and a half, while the Cubs drought has lasted 100 years!!! If I had the choice between a year and a half of economic decline, a dramatic decrease in employment, and all the other factors causing the Great Depression or waiting another 100 years for the Cubs to win the World Series, I honestly do not know what I would choose. Hopefully next year will be the year the Cubs win, because I am tired of waiting and need to get out of this Depression.

Everyone does Rewrites

Last Friday, a bill passed in the House of Representatives that is designed to stimulate the credit markets. The importance of the bill is that the government is going to buy bad bonds from many banks, which will hopefully end our crisis. This is by no means a quick fix, because it will take possibly a month to get the money buying going and the cash flowing and our government is not fully confident that the banks will continue loaning out their money. According to the Chicago Tribune, over $700 billion will be given to numerous banks and an additional $110 billion elsewhere through the bill. The article also discusses the small risk in the bill for the Treasury. If the bill doesn't work, or in other words if the banks stop giving out a set amount of loans, then our economy will severely hurt and all this bill and all the money given to banks will have been wasted.

I started thinking about this bill and why the first bill didn't pass. It seems Hank Paulson's first bill, which was only 3 pages, didn't pass because the republicans thought it was flawed and voted it down. They thought they could get a better bill. The bill that just passed is much more detailed; infact, it is now 450 pages! These events reminded me of our Reservation Blues essays. The first drafts were done hastily and now we are getting the chance to add more details and improve our essays. I guess even our government is still rewriting essays. Thankfully Mr. Lawler and Mrs. Logan don't make us add 447 pages to each rewrite!

Radio Rights

Upon searching sunday's edition of the Chicago Tribune, I stumbled upon an editorial that caught my eye. As a music lover, the title of the article instantly appealed to me. The editorial is called "Radio: Pay the band" and is written by the Chicago Tribune Editorial Board. The editorial is about radio stations neglecting to pay performers for the music that they made famous. The radio stations do pay the songwriters, but performers such as Aretha Franklin do not receive any form of pay for letting radio stations play the songs that they made famous. This issue has been brought to legislative attention via Representative Howard Berman in the Performance Rights Act. In Berman's act, small broadcasters (those making under $1.25 million annually in revenue) would only have to pay a flat annual royalty of $5,000. Larger stations would pay no more than $1,000 annually. Music stations are advocating to deny the act because they fear it may put many stations out of business, which would in turn hurt the performers because their music will not be heard.

I really enjoyed reading about this conflict, because it appealed through all three main appeals. The editorial appealed to me through pathos, because it made me feel bad for the performers like Aretha Franklin who are getting scammed out of their rightful money. It appealed to me through logos, because I feel that the argument is very logical. Why shouldn't performers be paid when songwriters are paid? Finally, the editorial appealed to me through ethos because I feel that it is ethical that the performers get paid. It is only fair that they get rewarded as well as the songwriters.

After reading the editorial, two main thoughts struck my mind. At first, I truly pitied the performers and didn't understand how our Constitution could allow this unjustice. It dawned on me that there are more important issues in this world and we are probably tying to find legal loopholes in our Constitution causing these issues. Does this mean that our Constitution, which we have had for the last 232 years needs to be changed?? Maybe. Don't the citizens of "the greatest country in the world" deserve a perfect constitution? I think so. After thinking about this I realized that performers already make a boat load of money, so the radical idea of changing our Constitution has subsided in my mind.

Overall, I enjoyed the article, but felt very manipulated by it. Since it was an editorial, it was heavily biased. The editorial fails to truly debate the enitre issue, only representing one side of the issue. There is only one paragraph for the opposition. The authors even states their opinion after introducing the issue: "Songwriters get paid, but performers don't. That seems unfair." The authors overwhelms the reader with their bias, which in the end does effectively convince the reader to accept the authors' view. To a reader that fails to rhetorically analyze the editorial, which is most readers, the editorial would appeal to them. This helps the authors of this editorial to gain support for their topic. So what makes a good editorial or article? Is it one that convinces the reader to agree with the author's point or is it a piece of writing that depicts two sides of an argument without the bias of an author? I'll let you decide.

Economic Perilous Times Over?

Around one year ago, a mortgage crisis arose. In a sense there was too much loose money. Interest rates were historically low and it seemed almost anyone could get a mortgage in order to buy a house. People who were unable to pay back these mortgages even were able to take them out. Forclosure rate thus sky-rocketed. The rates of forclosure directly impacted the ability to get money or loans. The value of the mortgages has since dropped like lead because people were unable to pay the loans back. This caused the companies who owned these mortages to lose a lot of money. As these companies had less tangible money, or liquidity, the rating agencies (such as S&P) lowered their ratings, which means that the companies it rated had to put up more money. This virtually stopped the flow of money, causing a sense of panic and a tendancy of people to sell and get back their money.

Recently, our government has bailed out companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac using the tax payers money. We even lent AIG a two year loan of almost $80 million. But does this solve our problem? The market HAS started to a small rally as shown in the above graph, but according to the New York Times our problems are far from over. Investors are now weary, if not afraid of investing and there is still potential for more battered firms to fail. Foreign nations are also now skeptical about our market. Also, loaning all of this money out puts our country farther in debt. Hopefully this crisis will be completely averted, but I think that we have merely put a band-aid on an open wound. What do you think?

McCain, a True "American"

This past weekend John McCain spoke at the Republican National Convention. He spoke about being a prisoner of war and frequently mentioned his pride for America. He later brought up Senator Obama and said: "We are fellow Americans and that's an association that means more to me than any other." What does this mean to you as a student or a teacher in our American Studies class? Does this mean Senator McCain is speaking to the John Wayne/cowboy type of person that we defined as a stereotypical American? Why is being "American" so important to Senator McCain?

Senator McCain is very passionate about the United States. He was a soldier, a prisoner of war, and is now running for president. Does this mean that he will make a good president? I don't know. Will he even be able to beat Senator Obama in the upcoming election? I don't know. So what makes anybody so passionate about being "American?" Is it our democratic system, Bill of Rights, or the power we hold in the world? Also, why does Senator McCain feel that being American is the closest association he has with anyone, not just Senator Obama?

First Post :-)

How's it going? This is my first blog. It's a great one.